Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Rushmore Capital
Go here:
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/Info_Center.asp
Put in ONEV for symbol.
Go to LII
Then click and hold mouse over RMCI on the LII.
Maybe we can get in Jaguar and Land Rover now that Tata Motors has finalized its purchase of those two brands from Ford:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-ford-jaguar,0,6293909.story
You truly believe it is going to go sub-sub penny, and you haven't sold every share you own yet??? That defies common sense, frankly.
Exactly WHY do you characterize it as toxic??? A 10% interest rate isn't exactly toxic, and the balance on the loan now is down to about $30K...what am I missing that makes it toxic???
You're the one who strung it along by trying to criticize Kaui for bringing it up; frankly, your post saying that he still kept his stripes should have been deleted as violating TOS; it surely constitutes inappropriate name-calling in my book. Hopefully Rocky will see it the same way.
Oh, and I don't have a problem with his having a bonus, and I never said I did, so, again, stop distorting things that someone else says just because they are not lock-step in agreement with your view. My objection is that he should not be getting a bonus from the first dollar that comes in when the financial situation is in dire straits, and when shareholders are having to experience dilution every single day due to those dire straits. His bonus should be tied to some reasonable revenue metrics, and not from dollar one. The $35K or so bonus that he got this year means that he had to borrow that much more on the credit account from the funders, which means he will cost us that much more dilution, or that much more in 24% interest rate payments on that $35K bonus! Yeah, THERE is someone who is looking out for his stockholders' interest!!!
Well, you know that the revenues are not literally "zip, zilch, zero," which means that you also know, then, that his commissions are not "zip, zilch, zero," either. It is absolutely obscene that the CEO is getting commissions from the very first dollar in revenue that the Company receives, given the amount of revenues currently being generated. For him to claim these commissions at a time when ONEV keeps needing to borrow to meet operational costs is outrageous under the terms that he has for receiving commissions. It's garbage, and you know it. Anyone who is not an apologist recognizes it, too!
Okay, that's more in line...which would mean that the $1.5 is good for nine months...
That does not equate to a 500K BURN rate; burn rate is the rate at which CASH is being spent and used; there is nothing in the 10-Q that suggests ONEV is using 500K cash per month.
Cite to me specific information to validate your assertion that the burn-rate of cash is 500K per MONTH.
who was the poster?
Well, until I do call, I am certainly permitted to discuss the issue here, whether you like it or not.
It was Rob who said it, not Dean. Again, take a step back and read my posts objectively instead of contorting what I say to mean something I didn't say.
My point, though, is that although there may be a standard definition, that does not mean that the person using the term is not misusing, thereby conveying an incorrect picture.
Actually, it is. Thanks for the input, though.
I think the import of the question really is, what is meant by "breakeven" when that is said? Do they mean mere operational breakeven? Or is there an inclusion in the term, an elasticity, if you will, that breakeven would include the general operational expenses plus debt service and things like payments toward the Philips royalty balance???
I do agree that their communications are poor with the investing community. As for a monthly update, the timing of updates is up for debate, but they do need to be better communicators with the investing public. As for the PR being "public," well, the fact is that the 10-Q is public, too, but it's a matter of exposure to the general investing public, part of the communication issue discussed above.
Now you are sounding like Hillary and the current White House administration, where everyone who disagrees with you becomes characterized as "attacking" you or ONEV. I am not, nor have I attacked you. I simply disagree with your apologetic defense of ONEV's missteps and missed timelines, over and over and over again. As for dilution, just recently you stated something to the effect that the continued dilution will not have an adverse impact on the amount of money that you make here. Saying now that dilution is bad does not change what you said in that regard. The essence of your prior statement is that dilution doesn't matter to you.
"when that happens"
That has been the key for well over 18 months now, and that date keeps getting pushed back, and dilution increases significantly with each delay. You can minimize the delay all you want, but dilution hurts you as an investor, but you already have denied that fact, too, so I don't expect you to agree with anyone else concerned by the repeated delays, because to you, dilution apparently is meaningless.
They don't need to PR that the initial launch has occurred the day it occurred. But, Rob apparently confirmed that it still is on target for the revised timeframe.
Uhmmm....sleep well, Rip!
Actually, I seem to recall one "newish" thing said, namely a confirmation that the MTNL projection from the 10-Q is still on target for this month.
I agree with you, that is how I read it to, and that understanding is what framed my response.
I do speak for myself!
Thanks, Rally; you are proving Dumo's point, which is that INTC articles being posted by Ugo about every conceivable use of the Atom is better-suited to the INTC board.
Links to the broadest of articles even mentioning an Intel MID chip or device does not constitute DD; it constitutes spamming, as Dumotier has pointed out!
Omehay, I agree with you, but I think that it is naive for Rob to suggest that the downdraft is being created by this board. It is being created, most notably, in my opinion, by the overhang of shares being sold by the toxic funders and the continued uncertainty of ONEV's revenue timelines.
Coyly, I'll reply with the same could be/maybe answer
And I didn't ask you for your advice or opinion, either; and I think that many, many, MANY posters here have asked you more than TEN TIMES to quite playing the broken record, and to support YOUR statements with facts and DD, yet 99% of your posts are devoid of facts and DD.
So, to quote yourself, "give it a try sumtime...."
Have you, lil buddy?
Its about the revenues at this point, Ugo, and ONEV needs them yesterday, but the promise of their coming seemingly is always the day after tomorrow.
My guess is for getting the prospective $1.5 million financing.
Frankly, if you go by PPS from a year ago, your glass (and mine, for that matter) is only about 20% full, as the rest of the contents of the glass have been evaporating over time. It's up to ONEV to start refilling that glass before it's bone dry. The fact that there may be six gallons of milk in the refrigerator does nothing actually to FILL my depleting glass! It's been six months for the license negotiations with Telmex, let's gitter done; same for the launch with MTNL -- just gitter done!
Of course you did. You apparently buy a bunch every day. You must be getting close to be a reporting 5% shareholder based on your reported rate of buying.
Not true. TA exists, in part, because buyers will aggregate at key technical levels, and the sellers will come down to those buyers when the supply is enough, and here it CERTAINLY is enough.
The ask also goes DOWN when the sellers know that the buyers are waiting at LOWER levels...that, too, is a fact that is supported by TA and the testing of support levels...
Not my logic, veno's logic, suggesting that my not buying is a contributing factor to the decline in the PPS of ONEV.
And, your portrayal of what I said absolutely twists it beyond recognition from what actually was said, in any event.
One doesn't have to be a buyer not to be the cause of the decline. Perhaps your willingness to keep buying at ever decreasing price levels is the cause for the decline, and that actually makes SENSE, as having buyers ready to continue buying on the way down could provide incentive for the funders and MMs to push the price down. If the buyers bought up the ASK, then maybe the funders and MMs would have an incentive to move the ask up, but you apparently have told them through your posts here that you remain willing to buy and buy and buy, even as the price continues to crater. Way to go!! Keep giving them incentive to push the price down by being a falling knife buyer!!
Don't lump me in with the cause of the price decline. The price has been declining because ONEV still can't show us the money, and the toxic funders are selling like rabbits having sex...fast, furious and continuously. Despite your summary protestations to the contrary, dilution DOES have an effect on one's ability to recognize maximum return for amount invested. It's really that simple.
Yes, but you also think that this is going even further sub-penny, under .005. With that thought in mind, you have been CRAZY to hold since it started falling from .025 or so, or whenever it was when you began saying the stock would keep falling into a tailspin on broken promises. In the current situation, you CONTINUE to lose your azz because you have allowed yourself not to follow your own advice.